pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19325 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Theoretical estimates for the synthesis of Z=119 superheavy nuclei with Ca, Ti, V, and Cr projectiles: effects of reaction Q values and mass-model dependence

K. Kawai , Y. Aritomo , K. Nakajima , S. Takagi , N. Nishimura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 01:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords superheavy nucleiZ=119evaporation residue cross sectionsfusion reactionsQ valuesurvival probabilitynuclear mass models
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Evaporation residue cross sections for Z=119 nuclei depend on Q-value to Coulomb-barrier ratios and nuclear mass model uncertainties that control survival probability.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper estimates evaporation-residue cross sections for four fusion reactions aimed at Z=119 nuclei using Ca, Ti, V, and Cr projectiles on heavy targets. It finds that the relative size of the reaction Q value compared to the Coulomb barrier sets the compound-nucleus excitation energy and therefore the survival probability against fission. Calculations with the FRDM2012 mass table give maximum summed cross sections of 233 fb, 206 fb, 33 fb, and 38 fb for the respective reactions, with the vanadium reaction smallest because its Q value produces higher excitation. Different mass models change the survival probability by one to several orders of magnitude, mainly through their predictions of neutron binding energies and shell corrections.

Core claim

Using a hybrid model of coupled-channels capture, Langevin formation, and statistical de-excitation, the maximum ER cross sections summed over xn channels with FRDM2012 properties reach 233 fb for 48Ca + 254Es, 206 fb for 50Ti + 249Bk, 33 fb for 51V + 248Cm, and 38 fb for 54Cr + 243Am. The 51V reaction has the smallest cross section because its smaller Q-value magnitude leads to higher excitation energy and reduced survival. Nuclear-mass-model variations produce survival-probability differences of one to several orders of magnitude that arise mainly from neutron binding energies and shell-correction energies.

What carries the argument

The hybrid three-stage framework (coupled-channels capture, Langevin formation, statistical de-excitation) together with the relation between reaction Q value and Coulomb-barrier height that fixes the excitation energy entering the survival calculation.

If this is right

  • The 48Ca + 254Es and 50Ti + 249Bk reactions are predicted to give the largest yields among the four.
  • Reactions whose Q values produce lower excitation energies will have higher survival probabilities and larger ER cross sections.
  • Uncertainties in neutron binding energies and shell corrections from mass models can alter predicted cross sections by one to several orders of magnitude.
  • The vanadium and chromium reactions are expected to be the least favorable because of their Q-value characteristics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These results could help experimental groups decide which projectile-target combinations to attempt first for element 119.
  • Better nuclear mass predictions would narrow the range of possible cross sections and make theoretical guidance more reliable.
  • The same Q-value and mass-model analysis could be extended to reactions aiming at Z greater than 119.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen hybrid reaction framework and the selected nuclear mass tables capture the dominant physics for these very heavy systems without large systematic errors in the survival probability.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement of the evaporation-residue cross section in any of the four reactions that lies more than an order of magnitude away from the calculated maximum values would falsify the central estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19325 by K. Kawai, K. Nakajima, N. Nishimura, S. Takagi, Y. Aritomo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the calculation method and the corresponding physical stages: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Excitation functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Excitation functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the capture and fusion cross sections corresponding to the FRDM2012 results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Survival probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Neutron binding energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Survival probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Calculated survival probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Neutron binding energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fusion reactions with 48Ca beams, which have been used for synthesis of $Z \le 118$ nuclei, face practical limitations for the synthesis of nuclei with $Z \ge 119$ because of the limited availability of suitable target nuclei. We estimate evaporation-residue (ER) cross sections for the reactions 48Ca + 254Es, 50Ti + 249Bk, 51V + 248Cm, and 54Cr + 243Am and examine the role of nuclear-mass-model uncertainties. We employ a hybrid framework for the three stages of the fusion reaction. The capture stage is described by the coupled-channels method, the formation stage by a Langevin approach, and the de-excitation stage by a statistical model. Using the nuclear properties from the FRDM2012 mass model, the maximum values of ER cross section summed over all xn channels are calculated to be 233, 206, 33, and 38 fb for the 48Ca + 254Es, 50Ti + 249Bk, 51V + 248Cm, and 54Cr + 243Am reactions, respectively. The relationship between the reaction Q value and the Coulomb-barrier height is found to be a key factor in comparing reactions leading to the same atomic number. In particular, the relatively small Q value magnitude of the 51V + 248Cm reaction leads to a higher excitation energy and a reduced survival probability, giving the smallest ER cross section among the reactions considered. We also find a significant mass-model dependence on the survival probability. Using the nuclear properties predicted by several mass tables yields differences in the survival probability ranging from about one to several orders of magnitude. This difference mainly originates from the neutron binding energy and shell-correction energy predicted by the nuclear mass models. The ER cross sections for the synthesis of Z = 119 nuclei are governed by both the relative relationship between the reaction Q value and the Coulomb-barrier height and nuclear-mass-model uncertainties that strongly affect the survival probability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper estimates evaporation-residue (ER) cross sections for four fusion reactions (48Ca + 254Es, 50Ti + 249Bk, 51V + 248Cm, 54Cr + 243Am) aimed at Z=119 superheavy nuclei using a hybrid framework: coupled-channels for capture, Langevin dynamics for formation, and statistical model for de-excitation. With FRDM2012 inputs, maximum summed ER cross sections are 233, 206, 33, and 38 fb respectively. It identifies the Q-value versus Coulomb-barrier relation as governing excitation energy and survival probability (e.g., smaller |Q| for 51V+248Cm yields higher E* and lower survival), and demonstrates that different nuclear mass tables produce 1–several orders of magnitude variation in survival probability, traced primarily to differences in neutron binding energies Bn and shell corrections.

Significance. If the relative trends hold, the work supplies useful guidance for experimental planning in superheavy-element synthesis by ranking reactions according to Q-value/barrier effects and by quantifying how mass-model uncertainties propagate into survival probabilities. The explicit comparison across four projectiles and multiple mass tables (FRDM2012 and others) illustrates the dominant physics without claiming absolute predictive accuracy, which is appropriate for this exploratory regime.

major comments (1)
  1. [Results (cross-section values and mass-model comparison)] The reported maximum ER cross sections (233 fb, 206 fb, 33 fb, 38 fb) are presented as point values with no uncertainty estimates or sensitivity bands, even though the text states that mass-model variations alone produce differences of one to several orders of magnitude in survival probability. This omission limits the utility of the numerical results for experimental prioritization, since the central claim concerns both the Q-value relation and the magnitude of model uncertainties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method (hybrid framework)] The description of the Langevin and statistical-model stages would benefit from explicit listing of the key parameters (e.g., friction coefficients, level-density prescriptions, fission-barrier adjustments) even if they are taken from prior literature, to allow readers to reproduce the survival-probability calculations.
  2. [Figures and results presentation] Figure captions or the text should clarify whether the plotted excitation functions are summed over all xn channels or shown per channel, and whether the quoted maxima include only the dominant channels.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and the recommendation for minor revision. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The reported maximum ER cross sections (233 fb, 206 fb, 33 fb, 38 fb) are presented as point values with no uncertainty estimates or sensitivity bands, even though the text states that mass-model variations alone produce differences of one to several orders of magnitude in survival probability. This omission limits the utility of the numerical results for experimental prioritization, since the central claim concerns both the Q-value relation and the magnitude of model uncertainties.

    Authors: We agree that the reported maximum ER cross sections are point values calculated specifically with the FRDM2012 mass model. The manuscript already states that different mass tables produce differences of one to several orders of magnitude in survival probability, arising mainly from variations in neutron binding energies and shell corrections. A full recomputation of capture, formation, and de-excitation for each mass table lies outside the scope of this exploratory study. In revision we will add an explicit statement in the results section clarifying that the quoted cross sections are illustrative within these large model uncertainties and are intended primarily to rank reactions according to Q-value and barrier effects rather than to serve as precise predictions. This will better convey the intended utility for experimental planning. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper computes ER cross sections for Z=119 synthesis by feeding external mass tables (FRDM2012 and alternatives) into a standard hybrid model chain (coupled-channels capture, Langevin formation, statistical de-excitation). The reported governing factors—the Q-value vs. Coulomb-barrier relation and mass-model effects on survival probability—are direct numerical outputs of these calculations, not quantities defined in terms of themselves or obtained by fitting a subset of the target data. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain, an internal ansatz, or a renamed empirical pattern; the derivation chain remains independent of the final cross-section values.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculations rest on three established nuclear-reaction models and several published mass tables; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced by the authors.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The coupled-channels method accurately describes the capture stage for these heavy systems.
    Invoked in the description of the capture stage.
  • domain assumption The Langevin approach correctly models the formation probability.
    Used for the formation stage.
  • domain assumption The statistical model with the chosen level-density and fission-barrier prescriptions gives reliable survival probabilities.
    Used for the de-excitation stage.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5715 in / 1595 out tokens · 27896 ms · 2026-05-10T01:22:05.947966+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This inversion already indicates that the re- actionQvalue and the resulting excitation energyE ∗ play an important role through the survival probability W

    than V–Cm (ZprojZtarg = 2208), it yields a slightly largerσ ER. This inversion already indicates that the re- actionQvalue and the resulting excitation energyE ∗ play an important role through the survival probability W. To clarify this, we first examine the capture and fu- sion stages and then discuss howWmodifies the final ordering ofσ ER. Figure 4 show...

    2067

  2. [2]

    Although the 54Cr + 243Am reaction has a larger charge product (Z projZtarg = 2280) than the 51V +248Cm reaction (ZprojZtarg = 2208), it yields a slightly largerσ ER

    The cross sectionσ ER is not determined simply by the projectile–target charge productZ projZtarg. Although the 54Cr + 243Am reaction has a larger charge product (Z projZtarg = 2280) than the 51V +248Cm reaction (ZprojZtarg = 2208), it yields a slightly largerσ ER. This inversion arises be- cause the magnitude of theQvalue for the 51V + 248Cm reaction is ...

  3. [3]

    This demonstrates a strong mass-model dependence of the calculated σER, even between different versions of the same model

    The predictedσ ER for the 48Ca + 254Es reaction differs by nearly an order of magnitude between FRDM1995 and FRDM2012. This demonstrates a strong mass-model dependence of the calculated σER, even between different versions of the same model

  4. [4]

    These effects suppress fission at high excitation energies and maintain a relatively largeWin that energy region

    The enhancement in the FRDM1995 result origi- nates from two cooperative effects during the evap- oration process: (i) lowerB n, which facilitates neu- tron emission, and (ii) an increase inV shell through neutron evaporation. These effects suppress fission at high excitation energies and maintain a relatively largeWin that energy region

  5. [5]

    These differences arise fromB n andV shell predicted by each mass model

    Using the nuclear properties predicted by differ- ent mass models (FRDM2012, WS4, and KTUY05) yields differences inWranging from about one to several orders of magnitude. These differences arise fromB n andV shell predicted by each mass model. The resulting variations inWintroduce substantial uncertainties intoσ ER, making it difficult to deter- mine the ...

    2025

  6. [6]

    Y. T. Oganessian and Y. A. Lazarev,in Treatise in Heavy-Ion Science, edited by D. A. Bromley (Plenum, New York, 1985) p. 3

    1985

  7. [7]

    Munzenberg, Recent advances in the discovery of transuranium elements, Reports on Progress in Physics 51, 57 (1988)

    G. Munzenberg, Recent advances in the discovery of transuranium elements, Reports on Progress in Physics 51, 57 (1988)

    1988

  8. [8]

    W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Nuclear masses and deformations, Nuclear Physics81, 1 (1966)

    1966

  9. [9]

    Sobiczewski, F

    A. Sobiczewski, F. Gareev, and B. Kalinkin, Closed shells forz >82 andn >126 in a diffuse potential well, Physics Letters22, 500 (1966)

    1966

  10. [10]

    Y. T. Oganessian and V. K. Utyonkov, Super-heavy ele- ment research, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 036301 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    Smola´ nczuk, J

    R. Smola´ nczuk, J. Skalski, and A. Sobiczewski, Spontaneous-fission half-lives of deformed superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C52, 1871 (1995)

    1995

  12. [12]

    Sobiczewski and K

    A. Sobiczewski and K. Pomorski, Description of structure and properties of superheavy nuclei, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics58, 292 (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: Frdm(2012), Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables109-110, 1 (2016)

    2012

  14. [14]

    Kowal, P

    M. Kowal, P. Jachimowicz, and A. Sobiczewski, Fission barriers for even-even superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014303 (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    Y. T. Oganessian, Fusion and fission induced by heavy ions, inClassical and Quantum Mechanical Aspects of Heavy Ion Collisions, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 33, edited by H. L. Harney, P. Braun-Munzinger, and C. K. Gelbke (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1975) pp. 221–252

    1975

  16. [16]

    Hofmann and G

    S. Hofmann and G. M¨ unzenberg, The discovery of the heaviest elements, Rev. Mod. Phys.72, 733 (2000)

    2000

  17. [17]

    K. Moritaet al., Experiment on the synthesis of el- ement 113 in the reaction 209bi(70zn,n)278113, Jour- nal of the Physical Society of Japan73, 2593 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.73.2593

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.73.2593 2004

  18. [18]

    Moritaet al., Observation of second decay chain from 278113, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan76, 045001 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.76.045001

    K. Moritaet al., Observation of second decay chain from 278113, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan76, 045001 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.76.045001

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.76.045001 2007

  19. [19]

    K. Moritaet al., New result in the production and de- cay of an isotope, 278113, of the 113th element, Jour- nal of the Physical Society of Japan81, 103201 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.81.103201

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.81.103201 2012

  20. [20]

    Y. T. Oganessian, A. V. Yeremin, A. G. Popeko, S. L. Bo- gomolov, G. V. Buklanov, M. L. Chelnokov, V. I. Chepi- gin, B. N. Gikal, V. A. Gorshkov, G. G. Gulbekian, M. G. Itkis, A. P. Kabachenko, A. Y. Lavrentev, O. N. Maly- shev, J. Rohac, R. N. Sagaidak, S. Hofmann, S. Saro, G. Giardina, and K. Morita, Synthesis of nuclei of the superheavy element 114 in ...

    1999

  21. [21]

    Hofmann, D

    S. Hofmann, D. Ackermann, S. Antalic, H. G. Burkhard, V. F. Comas, R. Dressler, Z. Gan, S. Heinz, J. A. Here- dia, F. P. Heßberger, J. Khuyagbaatar, B. Kindler, I. Ko- jouharov, P. Kuusiniemi, M. Leino, B. Lommel, R. Mann, G. M¨ unzenberg, K. Nishio, A. G. Popeko, S. Saro, H. J. Sch¨ ott, B. Streicher, B. Sulignano, J. Uusitalo, M. Ven- hart, and A. V. Ye...

    2007

  22. [22]

    Stavsetra, K

    L. Stavsetra, K. E. Gregorich, J. Dvorak, P. A. Ellison, I. Dragojevi´ c, M. A. Garcia, and H. Nitsche, Independent verification of element 114 production in the48Ca+242Pu reaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 132502 (2009)

    2009

  23. [23]

    C. E. D¨ ullmann, M. Sch¨ adel, A. Yakushev, A. T¨ urler, K. Eberhardt, J. V. Kratz, D. Ackermann, L.-L. Anders- son, M. Block, W. Br¨ uchle, J. Dvorak, H. G. Essel, P. A. Ellison, J. Even, J. M. Gates, A. Gorshkov, R. Graeger, K. E. Gregorich, W. Hartmann, R.-D. Herzberg, F. P. Heßberger, D. Hild, A. H¨ ubner, E. J¨ ager, J. Khuyag- baatar, B. Kindler, J...

    2010

  24. [24]

    P. A. Ellison, K. E. Gregorich, J. S. Berryman, D. L. Bleuel, R. M. Clark, I. Dragojevi´ c, J. Dvorak, P. Fallon, C. Fineman-Sotomayor, J. M. Gates, O. R. Gothe, I. Y. Lee, W. D. Loveland, J. P. McLaughlin, S. Paschalis, M. Petri, J. Qian, L. Stavsetra, M. Wiedek- ing, and H. Nitsche, New superheavy element isotopes: 242Pu(48Ca,5n) 285114, Phys. Rev. Lett...

    2010

  25. [25]

    Morita, K

    K. Morita, K. Morimoto, D. Kaji, H. Haba, Y. Wak- abayashi, M. Takeyama, S. Yamaki, K. Tanaka, H. Hasebe, M. Huang, J. Kanaya, M. Murakami, A. Yoneda, A. Yoshida, T. Yamaguchi, F. Tokanai, T. Yoshida, Z. Gan, L. Ma, H. Geissel, S. Hofmann, Y. Maurer, K. Fujita, Y. Narikiyo, T. Tanaka, S. Ya- mamoto, M. Asai, and K. Katori, Measurement of the 248Cm+48Ca fu...

    2014

  26. [26]

    M¨ unzenberg, S

    G. M¨ unzenberg, S. Hofmann, F. P. Heßberger, W. Reis- dorf, K. H. Schmidt, J. H. R. Schneider, P. Armbruster, C. C. Sahm, and B. Thuma, Identification of element 107 byαcorrelation chains, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei300, 107 (1981)

    1981

  27. [27]

    M¨ unzenberg, P

    G. M¨ unzenberg, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, P. F. Heßberger, S. Hofmann, J. Keller, K. Poppensieker, W. Reisdorf, K.-H. Schmidt, H.-J. Sch¨ ott, M. E. Leino, 13 and R. Hingmann, The identification of element 108, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei317, 235 (1984)

    1984

  28. [28]

    M¨ unzenberg, W

    G. M¨ unzenberg, W. Reisdorf, S. Hofmann, Y. K. Agar- wal, F. P. Heßberger, K. Poppensieker, J. R. H. Schnei- der, W. F. W. Schneider, K.-H. Schmidt, H.-J. Sch¨ ott, P. Armbruster, C.-C. Sahm, and D. Vermeulen, Evidence for element 109 from one correlated decay sequence fol- lowing the fusion of58fe with209bi, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei31...

    1984

  29. [29]

    Hofmann, V

    S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F. P. Heßberger, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, G. M¨ unzenberg, H. J. Sch¨ ott, A. G. Popeko, A. V. Yeremin, A. N. Andreyev, S. Saro, R. Janik, and M. Leino, Production and decay of269110, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei350, 277 (1995)

    1995

  30. [30]

    Hofmann, V

    S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F. P. Heßberger, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, G. M¨ unzenberg, H. J. Sch¨ ott, A. G. Popeko, A. V. Yeremin, A. N. Andreyev, S. Saro, R. Janik, and M. Leino, The new element 111, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei350, 281 (1995)

    1995

  31. [31]

    Hofmann, V

    S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F. P. Heßberger, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, G. M¨ unzenberg, H. J. Sch¨ ott, A. G. Popeko, A. V. Yeremin, S. Saro, R. Janik, and M. Leino, The new element 112, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei 354, 229 (1996)

    1996

  32. [32]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3154 (1999)

    1999

  33. [33]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov,et al., Phys. Rev. C69, 021601 (2004)

    2004

  34. [34]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov,et al., Phys. Rev. C63, 011301 (2000)

    2000

  35. [35]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. S. Abdullin,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 142502 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov,et al., Phys. Rev. C74, 044602 (2006)

    2006

  37. [37]

    Tanaka, P

    M. Tanaka, P. Brionnet, M. Du, J. Ezold, K. Felker, B. J. Gall, S. Go, R. K. Grzywacz, H. Haba, K. Hagino, S. Hogle, S. Ishizawa, D. Kaji, S. Kimura, T. T. King, Y. Komori, R. K. Lemon, M. G. Leonard, K. Morimoto, K. Morita, D. Nagae, N. Naito, T. Niwase, B. C. Rasco, J. B. Roberto, K. P. Rykaczewski, S. Sakaguchi, H. Sakai, Y. Shigekawa, D. W. Stracener,...

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.91.084201 2022

  38. [38]

    J. M. Gates, R. Orford, D. Rudolph, and et al., Toward the Discovery of New Elements: Production of Livermo- rium (Z=116) with Ti50, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 172502 (2024), arXiv:2407.16079 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Oganessian, Yuri, From past to future in the science of super heavy elements, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 227 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, F. S. Abdullin, and et al., Investigation of reactions with 50Ti and 54Cr for the synthesis of new elements, Phys. Rev. C112, 014603 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, D. I. Solovyev, F. S. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, D. Ibadullayev, M. G. Itkis, N. D. Kovrizhnykh, D. A. Kuznetsov, O. V. Petrushkin, A. V. Podshibiakin, A. N. Polyakov, A. G. Popeko, R. N. Sagaidak, L. Schlattauer, V. D. Shubin, M. V. Shumeiko, Y. S. Tsyganov, A. A. Voinov, V. G. Sub- botin, A. V. Sabelnikov, D. Abdusamadzo...

    2026

  42. [42]

    Khuyagbaatar, A

    J. Khuyagbaatar, A. Yakushev, C. E. D¨ ullmann, D. Ack- ermann, L.-L. Andersson, M. Asai, M. Block, R. A. Boll, H. Brand, D. M. Cox, M. Dasgupta, X. Derkx, A. Di Nitto, K. Eberhardt, J. Even, M. Evers, C. Fahlander, U. Forsberg, J. M. Gates, N. Gharibyan, P. Golubev, K. E. Gregorich, J. H. Hamilton, W. Hart- mann, R.-D. Herzberg, F. P. Heßberger, D. J. Hi...

    2020

  43. [43]

    Hagino and T

    K. Hagino and T. Tanaka, Fusion barrier distribution and superheavy elements, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1291, 012010 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    Tanaka, K

    T. Tanaka, K. Morita, K. Morimoto, D. Kaji, H. Haba, R. A. Boll, N. T. Brewer, S. Van Cleve, D. J. Dean, S. Ishizawa, Y. Ito, Y. Komori, K. Nishio, T. Niwase, B. C. Rasco, J. B. Roberto, K. P. Rykaczewski, H. Sakai, D. W. Stracener, and K. Hagino, Study of quasielastic barrier distributions as a step towards the synthesis of su- perheavy elements with hot...

    2020

  45. [45]

    Aritomo and M

    Y. Aritomo and M. Ohta, Nuclear Physics A744, 3 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    Adamian, N

    G. Adamian, N. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Isotopic de- pendence of fusion cross sections in reactions with heavy nuclei, Nuclear Physics A678, 24 (2000)

    2000

  47. [47]

    A. S. Umar, V. E. Oberacker, J. A. Maruhn, and P.-G. Reinhard, Entrance channel dynamics of hot and cold fusion reactions leading to superheavy elements, Phys. Rev. C81, 064607 (2010)

    2010

  48. [48]

    Swiatecki, Siwek-Wilcynska, Fusion by diffusion

    W. Swiatecki, Siwek-Wilcynska, Fusion by diffusion. ii. synthesis of transfermium elements in cold fusion reac- tions, Phys. Rev. C71, 014602 (2005)

    2005

  49. [49]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Unified consideration of deep inelastic, quasi-fission and fusion–fission phenom- ena, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 31, 825 (2005)

    2005

  50. [50]

    Amano, Y

    S. Amano, Y. Aritomo, and M. Ohta, Dynamical mech- anism of fusion hindrance in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C108, 014612 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Liang, M

    Y.-J. Liang, M. Zhu, Z.-H. Liu, and W.-Z. Wang, Nu- cleon flow in the process of evolution from dinucleus to mononucleus investigated with a dynamic model, Phys. Rev. C87, 047602 (2013)

    2013

  52. [52]

    Jaganathen, M

    Y. Jaganathen, M. Kowal, and K. Pomorski, Demysti- fying the fusion mechanism in heavy-ion collisions: A six-dimensional langevin dissipative dynamics approach, Physics Letters B862, 139302 (2025). 14

    2025

  53. [53]

    A. K. Nasirov, G. Mandaglio, G. Giardina, A. So- biczewski, and A. I. Muminov, Effects of the entrance channel and fission barrier in the synthesis of superheavy elementz= 120, Phys. Rev. C84, 044612 (2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    Li and H.-F

    J.-X. Li and H.-F. Zhang, Possibility to synthesizez > 118 superheavy nuclei with 54Cr projectiles, Phys. Rev. C108, 044604 (2023)

    2023

  55. [55]

    Simenel, D

    C. Simenel, D. Hinde, R. du Rietz, M. Dasgupta, M. Ev- ers, C. Lin, D. Luong, and A. Wakhle, Influence of entrance-channel magicity and isospin on quasi-fission, Physics Letters B710, 607 (2012)

    2012

  56. [56]

    Sekizawa and K

    K. Sekizawa and K. Hagino, Time-dependent hartree- fock plus langevin approach for hot fusion reactions to synthesize thez= 120 superheavy element, Phys. Rev. C99, 051602 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Godbey, A

    K. Godbey, A. S. Umar, and C. Simenel, Deformed shell effects in 48Ca+ 249 Bk quasifission fragments, Phys. Rev. C100, 024610 (2019)

    2019

  58. [58]

    fusion by diffusion

    T. Cap, K. Siwek-Wilczy´ nska, and J. Wilczy´ nski, Nucleus-nucleus cold fusion reactions analyzed with the l-dependent “fusion by diffusion” model, Phys. Rev. C 83, 054602 (2011)

    2011

  59. [59]

    Siwek-Wilczy´ nska, T

    K. Siwek-Wilczy´ nska, T. Cap, M. Kowal, A. Sobiczewski, and J. Wilczy´ nski, Predictions of the fusion-by-diffusion model for the synthesis cross sections ofz= 114–120 ele- ments based on macroscopic-microscopic fission barriers, Phys. Rev. C86, 014611 (2012)

    2012

  60. [60]

    Hagino, Hot fusion reactions with deformed nuclei for synthesis of superheavy nuclei: An extension of the fusion-by-diffusion model, Phys

    K. Hagino, Hot fusion reactions with deformed nuclei for synthesis of superheavy nuclei: An extension of the fusion-by-diffusion model, Phys. Rev. C98, 014607 (2018)

    2018

  61. [61]

    Sobiczewski and Y

    A. Sobiczewski and Y. A. Litvinov, Predictive power of nuclear-mass models, Phys. Rev. C90, 017302 (2014)

    2014

  62. [62]

    Geng, P.-H

    C. Geng, P.-H. Chen, F. Niu, Z.-X. Yang, X.-H. Zeng, and Z.-Q. Feng, Assessing the impact of nuclear mass models on the prediction of synthesis cross sections for superheavy elements, Phys. Rev. C109, 054611 (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Cross sections for the pro- duction of superheavy nuclei, Nuclear Physics A944, 257 (2015), special Issue on Superheavy Elements

    2015

  64. [64]

    Hagino, N

    K. Hagino, N. Rowley, and A. Kruppa, Computer Physics Communications123, 143 (1999)

    1999

  65. [65]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Journal of Physics G: Nu- clear and Particle Physics34, 1 (2006)

    2006

  66. [66]

    Amano, Y

    S. Amano, Y. Aritomo, and M. Ohta, Modes of massive nucleon transfer appearing in quasifission processes for collisions of superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C106, 024610 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    Vandenbosch and J

    R. Vandenbosch and J. R. Huizenger,Nuclear Fission (Academic Press, New York, 1973)

    1973

  68. [68]

    Reisdorf and M

    W. Reisdorf and M. Sch¨ adel, How well do we understand the synthesis of heavy elements by heavy-ion induced fu- sion?, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei343, 47 (1992)

    1992

  69. [69]

    Ohta, Proceedings on Fusion Dynamics at the Ex- tremes, World Scientific , 110 (2001)

    M. Ohta, Proceedings on Fusion Dynamics at the Ex- tremes, World Scientific , 110 (2001)

    2001

  70. [70]

    M¨ oller, J

    P. M¨ oller, J. Nix, W. Myers, and W. Swiatecki, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables59, 185 (1995)

    1995

  71. [71]

    M. A. Nagarajan, A. B. Balantekin, and N. Takigawa, Geometric interpretation of the adiabatic model for heavy-ion fusion, Phys. Rev. C34, 894 (1986)

    1986

  72. [72]

    Rumin, K

    T. Rumin, K. Hagino, and N. Takigawa, Applicability of the orientation average formula in heavy-ion fusion reactions of deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C63, 044603 (2001)

    2001

  73. [73]

    Hagino and N

    K. Hagino and N. Rowley, Large-angle scattering and quasielastic barrier distributions, Phys. Rev. C69, 054610 (2004)

    2004

  74. [74]

    Aritomo, K

    Y. Aritomo, K. Hagino, K. Nishio, and S. Chiba, Phys. Rev. C85, 044614 (2012)

    2012

  75. [75]

    N. Wang, M. Liu, X. Wu, and J. Meng, Surface diffuse- ness correction in global mass formula, Physics Letters B 734, 215 (2014)

    2014

  76. [76]

    Koura, T

    H. Koura, T. Tachibana, M. Uno, and M. Yamada, Progress of Theoretical Physics113, 305 (2005)

    2005

  77. [77]

    A. N. Ignatyuk, G. N. Smirenkin, and A. S. Tishin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 21, 255 (1975)

    1975

  78. [78]

    T¯ oke and W

    J. T¯ oke and W. ´Swiatecki, Surface-layer corrections to the level-density formula for a diffuse fermi gas, Nuclear Physics A372, 141 (1981)

    1981

  79. [79]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. S. Abdullin,et al., Phys. Rev. C 87, 054621 (2013)

    2013

  80. [80]

    Khuyagbaatar, A

    J. Khuyagbaatar, A. Yakushev, C. E. D¨ ullmann, D. Ack- ermann, L.-L. Andersson, M. Asai, M. Block, R. A. Boll, H. Brand, D. M. Cox, M. Dasgupta, X. Derkx, A. Di Nitto, K. Eberhardt, J. Even, M. Evers, C. Fahlander, U. Forsberg, J. M. Gates, N. Gharibyan, P. Golubev, K. E. Gregorich, J. H. Hamilton, W. Hart- mann, R.-D. Herzberg, F. P. Heßberger, D. J. Hi...

    2019

Showing first 80 references.